Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific (page 18)

Finkelstein

Being scientific is the opposite of imaginary beliefs formulated upon human ignorance and emotive theories..

C0ntr013r

I never said disbelieve, I specifically and purposely wrote "lack of belief". Re-read it again as written and let's discuss.

I apologize, getting tired

I would essentially say the same thing since I think the meaning is essentially the same.

I think to have a lack of belief in something, you need to know of that thing.

You're disagreeing with a proposition that is your own invention, I never said nor suggested such a thing.

I was just guessing, curious what you build that idea on then.

Viviane

Really? I did not know that. When?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#Initial_examinations

No, it depends on your definition of fairies, if they are shy creature that can turn invisible or in other ways are un-testable.

We can detect invisible things, we do it all the time, so that is right out. If you're definition is that they are something untestable, then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way.

It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them and would conclude that they probably does not exist to a high level of certainty.

I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?

They define God in that way so you cant disprove him. People want God and only the disprovable god will survive the test of time. It is just like evolution, it adapts. So we might call it an evolution of God

That definition is pointless, then, and is rejected on logic alone.

Any example of a study made on God/fairies?

I never said there was a study made on fairies. Please stick strictly to what I write and refrain from modifying what I write.

C0ntr013r

Which god that has ever been worshipped do you still worry about?

I don't know, I am just not 100% sure all of them can't exist.

"If God told me" is a thought I can entertain. And if he revealed himself to us humans I would believe in him.

If you are 100% sure you would have to reject this, since God can't exist?

Viviane

I would essentially say the same thing since I think the meaning is essentially the same.

They are not the same thing.

I think to have a lack of belief in something, you need to know of that thing.

Before you were aware of the magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt, did you have or lack a belief in them?

C0ntr013r

God
But God's existence is yet to be established. Babies are oblivious to other people's belief in god - that's why parents usually pass on their beliefs to their children.
You don't get ready-made, new-born true believers, do you? Form this it seems reasonable to conclude that neonates are without belief in god/gods and are therefore atheists.

I think I explained my position as well as I can here:

Since I don't think they entertain any belief at all, I don't think they believe in God and I don't think they disbelieve in God. They simply have no belief or opinion in the matter.

C0ntr013r

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies#Initial_examinations

Interesting, I retract my statement. Science does deal with fairies if evidence for their existence appear. (falsifiable evidence in form of a photo)

then you've also defined them as being something that cannot interact with nature and are therefore pointless in every conceivable context because they cannot possibly affect our world in any way.

Not necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive of since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation. And there are probably newer ways of measuring and places to do that measuring that has been discovered more recently, and i reason that there are still more to come.

I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?

Yupp, I definitely need to sleep soon

It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them. So we would conclude that they probably don't exist to a high level of certainty.

Ok, Ill re ask the question:

I don't think scientific studies deal with God nor fairies.

I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)

C0ntr013r

Before you were aware of the magical unicorns made of meteorite teapots living in my dog's butt, did you have or lack a belief in them?

No i did not have neither, as said before; I don't think I can believe that unless I am first made aware of the idea.

Why do you think I should?

_Morpheus

Told ya! Now that viv is here we are in full swing. 18 pages and counting

Viviane

Not necessarily correct, there might still be ways to interact with nature that we do not know of, it is not even hard to conceive since it was only in 1965 that we discovered background radiation

It was 1948 predicted mathematically in 1948, actually, so there was evidence for BEFORE it was detectable. You're also assuming that, when I said "undectable" I mean "with out current tools". I did not. I simply said "undetectable". If there is no way to detect God, ever, in any sense, then it can in no conceivable way interact with the universe.

I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)

I just showed you a way science dealt with fairies. What else are you after?

No i did not have neither, as said before; I don't think I can believe that unless I am first made aware of the idea.
Why do you think I should?
I never said you should. Why do ask questions about things I never wrote? I am simply pointing out that, in much the same way you are a-magical unicorn in my dog's butt, meaning lacking belief in them even before you heard of it, babies are similarly atheists.

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

I can't parse that sentence. Care to take another swing at it? The opposite of what? Does "except" mean accept or expect?

That definition is pointless, then, and is rejected on logic alone.

I never said there was a study made on fairies. Please stick strictly to what I write and refrain from modifying what I write.

Interesting, I retract my statement. Science does deal with fairies if evidence for their existence appear. (falsifiable evidence in form of a photo)

Yupp, I definitely need to sleep soon

It would not be the case that we except evidence from them, if they are the opposite we would expect evidence from them. So we would conclude that they probably don't exist to a high level of certainty.

Ok, Ill re ask the question:

I don't think scientific studies deal with God nor fairies.

I sense you think there are other ways science deals with them, if so how? (apologize if I am putting word in your mouth)

I just showed you a way science dealt with fairies. What else are you after?

Share this